jjgman21

Yes. That's true. Yup ...and cut your hair too! and pull yer damn pants up. what's the point of wearing the belt anyway?

I heard a quip on the radio this morning from one of the guys involved in the investigation of Pete Rose. he said this investigation is a sham, and his reasoning seemed to make sense to me. George Mitchell is a part owner of the RedSox. he has a built in conflict of interest. how can this investigation be taken seriously when the objectivity of the person conducting the investigation is clearly in doubt right from the start?

I don't think I recall any player not getting at least some reduction on appeal...with the exception of a couple of Cubs of course.

I don't know alot about finance and investing, but I do know that the past decade and a half has been one of intense media conglomeration. relatively speaking, the Tribune is a small peanuts operation in the media world. if more media conglomeration is in the future, which it is considering Republican efforts to make it happen, and print media continues to struggle, which it will, don't be surprised to see the Trib merge or get bought up by one of the 6 or 7 companies that already control 98% of the media in this country. what that does for the Trib's willingness to sell or hang onto the Cubs I do not know.

between Daley/city counsel and Wrigley being listed on the National Registry of Historic Places, the coy disguises are necessary. there are many politicians telling them what they cannot do with their building, so they have to jump through the hoops and do what they can.

I know there hasn't been alot of Cubs baseball on TV this spring, so I don't know how much others have seen him pitch, but the inning or two I caught of Marshall, my first impression was 'this guy is going to throw his arm out.' he has a slow leg kick, then rushes so his arm catches up with the rest of his body. not good mechanics at all. I am one that always hopes a prospect pans out and becomes a lasting member of the team, but with Marshall, I hope he dominates until Prior/Wood/Miller are back, send him down and let him dominate the minors, then trade him. he already has an arm injury under his belt, and his delivery, while deceptive, will lead to more arm problems if not corrected. this is the guy you trade when his value is highest.

I don't think people have said they downgraded in three of the last six years. people said that about 2004, and with good reason. then Marquis, Suppan, Edmonds, Carpenter, Womack, Eldred, Tavarez, etc etc go on to have career years. I will give them the benefit of the doubt when they stop putting bottom feeders out there. I don't care if the bottom feeders always seem to come through, they are still bottom feeders and they are still flukes. see Hart, B.; Simontacchi, J.; Matthews, M.; Benes, A.; Smith, B.; Womack, T.; Tavarez, J.; Reyes, A.; Nunez, A; Rod, J. if you don't see the differences between the Cardinals downgrades this offseason and the moves they made in other seasons, I don't think you are looking carefully enough. the Cardinals have three big boppers, but other than that, where is the offense coming from? even if those three repeat their romp of 2004, there isn't another position on the team that will even approach league average production. they can expect much worse performance out of at least three slots in the rotation after Suppan and Carpenter both had career years and with the terrible Ponson replacing the average Morris. one of the biggest strengths of the team from last year, the bullpen, is decimated. they are probably the favorites, but bare in mind that all these statistical formulations that predict the finishes include accounting for injury risk. the Cardinals have been relatively injury free, save Rolen, the past couple years, and the Cubs have been injury riddled. that is worked into these equations, yet the Cubs still finish within a game or two in most of these analysis. the prognosticators are all making their predictions without Prior, Wood and Miller in the picture, and not taking our leftfielder as any kind of offensive threat or recognizing how much of an improvment Pierre will be over last year, even if he only repeats his career worst performance. I truly think the division comes down to which team is healthiest, which recent history suggests is not a good sign. the Cubs are off on the wrong foot, just like the past couple years. IF our big guns come back by mid May, the Cubs will give the Cards a run for their money in the division. while you don't want to count on it, there still is not a rotation in the major leagues that matches a healthy Z, Prior, and Wood. throw Miller into the mix with Maddux in a contract year, and you're back to the 'where does it rank among the all time best rotation' talk of pre-2004. if two of the three come back AND any Cards star misses significant time, or Rolen doesn't come back to form, or Edmonds slips a little more from what he did last year, the Cubs in my mind are clearly the favorites for the division.

No disagreements there. I think you make a good point...... the Cards haven't had alot of young players who have been worth a hoot to begin with. That's not Larussa's fault. the bolded part above is the exact point I made, but I added Polanco might have been blocked. so you agree with the statement generally, but only if the statement is unqualified and the one possible exception is left out of the equation, thus leaving LaRussa completely untainted.

well I got some new info from my inside guy who helped me deshingle my roof last weekend (which goes to show how luxurious the life of a minor league umpire is). the minor league umps were made an offer early this week and it looks like they are going to take it. some other tidbits the college umps were not looking to work the minors. they knew the minor leaguers were getting screwed and the umpire community is quite tight. Bob Davidson, one of the umps that resigned/was fires/whatever and who gained notoriety during the WBC for blowing numerous calls, will be reinstated and back in the big leagues. the ump this guy respects the most is Joe West.

not sure about W/L, but I'm pretty sure PECOTA had the Cards winning the central handily in 2004 when everybody else was picking the Cubs and Astros. I think it tends to be pretty much dead on, with a few exceptions (ie. the White Sox last year), for the standings.

9 with wade miller... Fer got em but the point is the same. At some point the team will either recognize the emerging abilities of Marshall/Hill/Guz and see what they can get for the others, or keep shuttling pitchers between Iowa and Chicago. Although given the injury history of scertain stud righ handers maybe that's a good option to have. When is it time to see what Wood/Prior can get on the open market, or do we simply see them walk in FA for nothing? won't the Cubs at least get draft picks for them if they let them walk? no positive, but I think Wood, yes, Maddux, no. the reason being that Maddux has been a FA already. I think compensation picks only come when the player is a first time FA.

Los Angeles of Anaheim adds two in the sixth. no idea who is pitching. weird, that's not fair the Angels helping out Arizona like that! oops. the talk about the Angels in the transaction thread got me thinking that's who they were playing today.

Los Angeles of Anaheim adds two in the sixth. no idea who is pitching.

I'm not complaining about anything. I'm all for LaRussa using inferior ballplayers and thinking those inferior ballplayers give him a better chance to win in both the short and long term. you sure give an aweful lot of weight to Paquette's 157 ABs in 1999. in 2000, Polanco got 323 ABs, Paquette got more than that. why not give Polanco 500 and Paquette another 150? but you are right, LaRussa did give Polanco a shot in 2001...at the expense of giving Pujols a regular position. yes, McEwing was marginally better than Polanco in 1999. marginally. but again you're missing the whole point, ie. the best thing for an organization isn't necessarily going with the marginally better older player when you can go with a younger guy who may develop into something solid, as Polanco did after moving to Philly and becoming the starting thirdbaseman. my first comment in this thread was a defense of LaRussa, with a caveat about his handling of one player. I don't know if you refuse to recognize that defense or that you won't even concede the potential mishandling of a single player in the past decade by the Cardinals, but I do know your homerism on this board is very tired.

Polanco played quite a bit at the end of his time with the Cards and then was traded for Rolen. he should have had not-so-super Joe's PT in 1999 and Paquette's PT in 2000. Polanco was terrible in '99. Paquette was coming off of a pretty good year ('99), in 2000, and Polanco hadn't proven a thing yet. It's not surprising that Paquette got the majority of the playing time. can you put your homeristic defense of everything Cardinal aside for one post and keep your comments confined to the context of the conversation. the conversation is about managers not allowing young players to develop in favor of giving older, crappy players playing time and roster spots. if Polanco was terrible in 1999, what was McEwing? Polanco caught and surpassed McEwing as a prosepect in 1997 when both played in AA. Polanco as a 21 year old and McEwing as a 24 year old. McEwing was always terrible and really stood no chance of ever being anything but terrible, and proved so by spending three years at the same level in the minors. so what would LaRussa have lost by giving the younger, better Polanco that PT instead of McEwing? Paquette was ok in 99 with a very small sample size, and I think spent most of 98 in the minors. he certainly wasn't worthy of getting 385 ABs in 2000 when he absolutely sucked since LaRussa had Polanco, who was far better than Paquette in 2000, at his disposal.

Polanco played quite a bit at the end of his time with the Cards and then was traded for Rolen. he should have had not-so-super Joe's PT in 1999 and Paquette's PT in 2000.

with his performance today, Mark Watson has overtaken Bran Corey for worst ERA on the team.

I think LaRussa has a legit claim to the reason Dusty uses to not play young players, and I think Dusty has a fairly good point. there haven't been a whole lot of players come up through the organizations they have managed. those that have come along and had enough talent to help their teams win have played. that is the price you pay of managing teams that are expected to contend. I really don't know of any players that have been held down by either manager, then gone on to great success with another organization, or in the case of the Giants, once Dusty left. maybe Polanco.

I'm not the biggest fan of Giles's tendancy to run into stuff. speaking of crappy thirdbaseman (Vance Law), one of my first favorite players was Steve Ontiveras.

it's not making sense. Miller isn't one of the 28 since he is not even on the 40 man. I think the article cited above is wrong and we are now down to 27. that is what is listed on cubs.com. if so, it all comes down to two spots for Theriot, Pagan, Novoa, Marshall, and Koronka. I don't see Novoa making it since he won't have enough innings. and I think Pagan makes it because of his spring (rational basis for the decision or not), plus Theriot is pretty redundant with 4 middle infielders already. if they do send down Theriot and go with 12 pitchers, I get this strange feeling one will end up being Koronka, which will :x everyone, but I wouldn't mind trading an extra year of control over Marshall for a couple of games in April.

I just saw a documentary called King of the Hill filmed over the course of a couple of seasons in the early 70's. I think 71-72. It's an amazing portrait of how the game was. as it turns out, how the game was is exactly how the game is. in particular, how things are with the Cubs organization seems to be exactly the same. right down to the very details of clubhouse disruptions to wearing out the best pitchers to boneheaded play to bad calls by the umpires to bad baserunning by a player named Alou (ok, that Alou was playing for the Astros at the time). and on top of that, it gives ya a little Cubs fix. if you have the Documentary Channel (Dish Network 197), I suggest tivo-ing this. it has been on several times over the past few weeks, and I finally caught it tonight, but it's only on again once in the near future, at 2:00 a.m. Thurs.

how typical is it that on a day where the wind is doing this, we have hit a few liners right at people. where's a bloody pop up when you need one.

Sisco and ......crickets...... exactly Blink.

Wade Miller must be placed on the 40-man, so my guess is this trade opens up his spot. ah. I misread what was written on the previous page. however, I don't see too much dead weight to cut in order to free up a spot for one or the other. Koronka and maybe Reyes.

does the Wellemeyer trade open up a spot for Restovich, or does one of the guys we got in return have to be put on the 40 man?